Key solutions and components: how the BM-13 Katyusha was created

31
Key solutions and components: how the BM-13 Katyusha was created
Serial installation of BM-13 on the ZIS-6 chassis


Guards rocket launcher BM-13 "Katyusha", actively used during the Great Patriotic War the war, deservedly bears the honorary title Weapons Victory. It showed high tactical and technical characteristics and had special combat capabilities. The appearance of such weapons became possible thanks to the long and successful work of Soviet specialists, who were able to solve a number of important technical and technological problems.



From idea to series


In 1938 aviation The Red Army adopted the first domestic rockets. At the same time, the idea of ​​​​transferring such weapons to a ground platform to strengthen artillery appeared. In June 1938, the Artillery Directorate of the Red Army sent tactical and technical requirements for such a model to the Jet Research Institute (RNII).

The new project is based on existing developments on the topic of aircraft missiles. At the first stages, it was about refining such products taking into account new requirements. Subsequently, the original design of the shells was seriously changed in one way or another.

At the turn of the decade, the project for a promising guards mortar reached the stage of assembly and preliminary testing of experimental equipment. With the help of prototypes, various design features of the projectile and its launcher were tested. At this stage, the main features of the appearance of the new technology were determined, which subsequently remained unchanged.


M-13 projectile of basic modification

Testing and refinement of the design continued until June 1941. The decree to launch production and begin operation of the new BM-13 combat vehicle with the M-13 projectile was issued literally on the eve of the German attack. In accordance with this document, the first experimental battery of guards mortars was prepared. Already on July 14, a unit under the command of Captain Ivan Flerov opened fire on the enemy for the first time.

Subsequently, the BM-13 system was built in a large series, and was also modernized several times. The base chassis was changed and the launcher was modified. A separate area was the updating and improvement of rockets. In total, during the Great Patriotic War, more than 6,8 thousand rocket launchers, as well as millions of shells for them, were built and sent to the front. In addition, based on the ideas of the BM-13, several new models of a similar appearance were created.

Guards rocket mortars were actively used on all sectors of the front. They complemented howitzer artillery and were used to strike at the enemy’s front line and near rear. Massive shelling with rockets with a fairly heavy warhead caused great damage to the enemy and also had a psychological impact. The combat use of the BM-13 and other models was highly appreciated, which subsequently contributed to the emergence of a line of new MLRS.


BM-13 on STZ-5-NATI chassis

Question of shells


A key component of the BM-13 project was the creation of a missile. The outcome of the entire project depended on the solution to this problem, and it was successfully completed. The development of the future M-13 product was carried out at the RNII and NII-6. One or another contribution to the overall result was made by A.G. Kostikov, B.M. Slonimer, V.G. Galkovsky, I.I. Gwai, V.V. Aborenkov et al.

Initially, the recently created RS-13 aircraft missile was taken as the basis for the future M-132 projectile. In this case, the main task was to increase the flight range. When launched from the ground, the aircraft projectile flew only 6 km, which was considered insufficient.

As a result of a technical search, the team of RNII and NII-6 found the opportunity to almost double the mass of solid rocket fuel in the projectile engine. This problem was solved by increasing the length of the checkers while maintaining the same diameter and other features. At the same time, it was necessary to improve the technology for making checkers.

It also required modifications to the engine housing and the rocket as a whole. Due to the updated engine, the ammunition became longer - 1,4 m versus the original 845 mm, and its weight increased to 42,3 kg with a warhead of 22 kg. Taking into account the experience of testing and operating the RS-132, the new M-13 received a more rigid stabilizer, which increased shooting accuracy. The launch range reached 8,5 km.


"Katyusha" on a Studebaker chassis, 1944

Subsequently, the M-13 projectile was modified several times. To improve performance or to maintain production in difficult conditions, types of gunpowder were replaced, the design of the rocket was adjusted, etc. In particular, the M-13UK ammunition with improved accuracy was created, which had side nozzles for spin-up and stabilization by rotation. Also of interest is the M-13DD projectile with a double engine, which provided a launch range of approx. 11,8 km.

Launch method


The RS-82 and RS-132 shells were launched from a beam guide under the wing of the carrier aircraft. The new M-13 series ammunition was supposed to take off in a similar way. However, developing a launcher with the optimal appearance turned out to be a difficult task. Several variants of such a unit were proposed, and the most successful one reached the series.

In the early stages of development, already in the summer of 1938, I.I. Gwai proposed a launcher for 24 missiles. It was made on the basis of basic guides 2,5 m long, similar to aviation ones. The guides were placed on a common frame and installed across the base chassis. This arrangement provided a large ammunition load, ensured ease of operation and saved the components of the carrier vehicle from the effects of reactive gases. However, the existing guides turned out to be too short to ensure the required accuracy and accuracy of fire.


Post-war modification of the BM-13NM on the ZIS-151 chassis

Later V.G. Galkovsky proposed a more successful launcher design. He used 5 m long guides on a common frame and placed them along the axis of the carrier machine. It was possible to fit eight guides into the dimensions of the available automobile chassis. Moreover, each of them could carry two projectiles, and the total ammunition load had quite acceptable dimensions.

The Galkovsky launcher, after some modifications and design improvements, was brought into production. Subsequently, it did not undergo significant changes and was used on all modifications of the BM-13, providing launches of projectiles of any models and variants.

Carrier vehicle


From the very beginning it was assumed that the promising rocket mortar would be self-propelled. The best combination of combat qualities and mobility was supposed to be provided by a car chassis. At first, ZIS-5 and ZIS-6 trucks were considered as launcher carriers. Early prototypes were made on their basis. Subsequently, mass production of the BM-13 was launched using the ZIS-6 chassis.

However, already in the fall of 1941 we had to look for alternative options. Military-issue BM-13s could be built on any available chassis with suitable characteristics. For example, a mortar based on the STZ-5-NATI tracked artillery tractor was produced in a fairly large series.


"Katyusha" based on the ZIL-157 truck

Supplies of foreign equipment under the Lend-Lease program improved the situation with the production of BM-13. Jet mortars began to be built on imported chassis of various models. The Studebaker US6 truck performed best in this capacity. In April 1943, this particular version of the combat vehicle was designated as “normalized” - BM-13N. Over the entire period, more than half of all BM-13 installations on wheeled chassis were assembled at the Studebaker base.

In the post-war period, rocket mortars received a new base. Launchers and control devices were transferred to modern trucks, such as the ZIS-151 or ZIL-157. Due to this, the mobility of the vehicle was improved, and operation was simplified due to unification with the rest of the vehicle fleet. armies.

The right decisions


The development of the future BM-13 rocket mortar, also known as Katyusha, took several years and required the involvement of several organizations of different profiles. During development, designers and scientists went through a lot of different solutions and formed the optimal appearance of the combat vehicle, and also found the necessary technologies for the production of the system and its individual components.

The result of a long and complex development process, which united several areas and industries, was the emergence of a successful and highly effective piece of equipment. Already in the first weeks of the Great Patriotic War, the new BM-13 demonstrated its main capabilities, and in the future the artillery of the Red Army actively used such combat vehicles, bringing victory closer.
31 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. The comment was deleted.
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. The comment was deleted.
  2. The comment was deleted.
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. The comment was deleted.
      1. The comment was deleted.
        1. The comment was deleted.
    3. The comment was deleted.
  3. +5
    9 May 2024 09: 01
    The Katyushas had many disadvantages, but one advantage: the maneuverability of the car chassis. Only light guns and tanks had such mobility. Heavy guns dragged agricultural tractors slowly and sadly. But the MLRS of that time could at least meet the enemy who had not yet gained a foothold with volleys.
    1. -6
      9 May 2024 09: 38
      You can use pipes instead of guides, instead of rockets, mines and this multi-barreled mortar can be transported by car, and for firing you can place it on the ground, the mortar method of accelerating a projectile is much more effective than the rocket method from an inclined pipe, gunpowder for throwing is consumed several times less
      1. +4
        9 May 2024 10: 44
        Quote: agond
        to shoot, place it on the ground,

        Which will immediately reduce mobility. Reliance on the ground requires the preparation of a support platform, and increases the shooting angle.
      2. +1
        9 May 2024 17: 50
        Quote: agond
        You can use pipes instead of guides, mines and missiles instead

        we get, in fact, a mortar.

        Quote: agond
        and this multi-barreled mortar

        Why does it need to be multi-barreled? A conventional 120-mm mortar has a rate of fire, with a trained crew, of 15 rounds per minute.
      3. 0
        27 July 2024 13: 43
        .powder for throwing is consumed several times less
        And weapons-grade steel - many times more. And fuel, carrying a heavy structure. And charge from the front, lowering the package, and a long power supply...
      4. 0
        20 August 2024 19: 53
        Quote: agond
        use pipes instead of guides

        Almost everything was done with pipes back then.

        The Americans used pipes in their T34 MLRS. Platform - Sherman tank. He's a handsome guy in the photo. The pipes had their problems, google that T34. By the way, this is a development from 1943, i.e. they tried to take into account the bumps and rakes of our BM-13.

        The Germans had a towed 6-barrel Nebelwerfer rocket mortar with pipes, but it was just a towed vehicle. But the Panzerwerfer 42 was completely self-propelled (based on a half-track vehicle) and also had pipes. But they protected the car with 15mm bulletproof armor and it turned out to be very heavy, slow and clumsy.

        But the German Nebelwerfer 41 is like yours, transportable, but for use it was placed on the ground. But there were not pipes, but a lattice to lighten the structure so that the crew could at least somehow move it on the ground.
  4. -6
    9 May 2024 09: 46
    The secrets of creating Katyusha were once revealed by the writer Golovanov. He told how the creators of these weapons were thrown into kitsch, and awarded to appointees who had little connection with the project.
    1. +3
      9 May 2024 13: 07
      If only in kichu. Kleimenov and Langemak were shot almost simultaneously with the adoption of Katyusha into service.
      1. +3
        9 May 2024 13: 32
        The NKVD investigators were also later shot. And even People's Commissar Yezhov was shot.

        And the scientists were not angels; they wrote denunciations against each other. And the same Korolev and Langemak, but not everyone was equally lucky. Korolev was returned from the Magadan region by prosecutor Vyshinsky. (Which, by the way, signed the arrest warrant for Lenin in 1917.)

        Such are the morals of society that either you have to shoot through one or your country will be plundered and the secrets sold to the West.... After all, in fact, this is how it all ended in the end.....

        And so it is impossible and vice versa it is impossible.... This is called the word: "historical dead end".... They can only crap each other, crap on each other, set them up and nothing more.

        I read General Guderian's memoirs, Memoirs of a Soldier. The author sings such praises to his colleagues and teachers that one might think that they were all worthy knights, and not an army of murderers.

        A decent attitude towards each other is the only thing that opens the way to the future for people. Anyone who doesn’t have this is on the trash heap!
        1. +4
          9 May 2024 14: 50
          And the scientists were not angels; they wrote denunciations against each other. And the same Korolev and Langemak, but not everyone was equally lucky.

          no need to compose. Korolev did not write any denunciations.
          The investigator who led the Korolev case quietly lived to old age in honor and respect, and when asked, he said that he did not remember any Korolev.
  5. The comment was deleted.
  6. +2
    9 May 2024 12: 39
    Why didn’t they use a slight tilt of the stabilizers for slow rotation, as in modern Grads? This is how engine thrust misalignment is eliminated. The projectile moves in a slight spiral, rather than constantly deflecting in one direction. It seems like the solution is obvious.
    1. +2
      9 May 2024 13: 20
      Why didn’t they use a slight tilt of the stabilizers for slow rotation, as in modern Grads? This is how engine thrust misalignment is eliminated. The projectile moves in a slight spiral, rather than constantly deflecting in one direction. It seems like the solution is obvious.

      Because the Jet Institute was destroyed by repressions, as the brainchild of Tukhachevsky, and Kleimenov and Langemak were simply shot. As a result, nothing worthwhile ever came out of this institution during the entire war.
      The spread of Katyusha shells was hundreds of meters even at short distances, and the salvo looked more spectacular than effective.
      And after the war, they first copied German tubular launchers, and then American launchers, modeled after Kaliope, so they became the predecessors of the Grad, where this was implemented...
      1. +3
        9 May 2024 13: 42
        Nobody copied it. And these are “firecrackers” with a range of 1-5 km and a weak explosive filling. In addition, with the stupid principle of stabilization by rotation, which devoured the range. The whole trick of the Grad is its folding stabilizers. And the pipes simply reduced the dimensions of the package. And the highlight is precisely the SLOW rotation due to aerodynamics. To eliminate the effect of asymmetry and misalignment, it is enough. So there was nothing better than the BM-13, much less the 30-tok.
        1. 0
          9 May 2024 14: 47
          However, during the entire war, they were unable to create tubular guides at the destroyed Jet Institute. Although the Germans and the Allies had them.
          And Kaliope’s flight stabilization was by tilting the stabilizers
          1. -1
            9 May 2024 16: 06
            Quote from solar
            in the destroyed Jet Institute they were unable to create tubular guides

            I can imagine the whole Jet Institute sitting and thinking: “What are these pipes? How to create them?”
            1. +2
              9 May 2024 16: 36
              And what can you imagine, they never created tubular guides, although, in your opinion, it was so simple.
              As well as folding stabilizers.
              As a result, the institute was closed and after the war, completely different organizations first made the M-14 RSZO with short tubular guides, and then, following the American model, the M-21 with tubular guides and folding stabilizers.
              Of course, these were not direct copies, but rather descendants of German and American systems. There was nothing from Katyusha in them.
              1. +1
                9 May 2024 16: 41
                Quote from solar
                What is there to imagine, they never created tubular guides

                Well, there is an iron logic here: if they didn’t create it, it means they couldn’t.
                1. 0
                  9 May 2024 16: 42
                  Yes. They couldn’t do it at the moment when it was needed. The Germans and Americans did it.
                  1. 0
                    9 May 2024 16: 43
                    Quote from solar
                    Yes. They couldn’t do it at the moment when it was needed.

                    All that remains is to prove that someone “claimed” it from them at that time.
        2. +3
          9 May 2024 16: 04
          Quote: dauria
          And these are “firecrackers” with a range of 1-5 km and a weak explosive filling.

          If you are talking about the Nebelwerfer, then it had a peculiarity - the mine was designed not for high-explosive, but for fragmentation. The warhead was located in the tail, and when hit, it exploded above the ground, ensuring effective scattering of fragments.

          Moreover, if it is true that the Nebelwerfer was originally designed for chemical weapons, then it turns out that this design of the mine was created specifically for the spraying of toxic substances, and it was simply modified for a fragmentation warhead. A lucky coincidence, so to speak.
          1. +1
            9 May 2024 16: 41
            Nebelwerfer is not the only German RSZO.
            There was also a Panzerwerfer, which served as a model for the M-14.
      2. +1
        9 May 2024 14: 04
        The M-31-UK (data from 1944) already had a slow rotation of 16 revolutions per second due to stabilizers.
        1. +2
          9 May 2024 14: 29
          The M-31 is a 300 mm projectile, not a Katyusha. And the M-31UK had special fittings that spun the projectile using jet thrust.
  7. The comment was deleted.
  8. The comment was deleted.
  9. The comment was deleted.
  10. -2
    10 May 2024 05: 10
    This is the third time I’m writing a comment on an article. Deleted, not sure why
    I decided to repeat my deleted comment.
    1. The article is not about anything. 152 mm is much better than Katyusha, but in the USSR there was no tractor that could drive 30-40 km per hour. Katyusha somehow compensated for it.
    2. The main thing is that we Russians either use ingenuity or intelligence. Therefore, they used a pasta factory to produce fuel for Katyushas. But the stern Teutonic genius could not think of this.

    For motherland for Stalin!
    1. +2
      10 May 2024 06: 24
      And I received a ban for 2 deleted comments on this article! drinks
      1. +1
        10 May 2024 07: 13
        drinks
        I'm already at work. The beer is already in the stomach.
        Glad to communicate!
        1. +1
          11 May 2024 18: 28
          I'm already at work. The beer is already in the stomach.
          Good job at Saratov University. It's so enviable! drinks
  11. 0
    11 May 2024 18: 27
    The M-13UK ammunition with improved accuracy was created, which had side nozzles for spin-up and stabilization by rotation.
    Rotational stabilization begins at rotational speeds of several hundred revolutions per second and higher. The principle of “turning” worked here. when the asymmetry of the nozzle manufacturing and the installation of stabilizers was averaged during rotation of about ten revolutions per second. The method was proposed and implemented at TsAGI by academician S. A. Khristianovich. By the way, during the civil war he was a street child.
  12. +1
    15 June 2024 07: 13
    Once, many years ago, I came across information that the name Katyusha came from the name of the KT-1 projectile, where T is thermite. Hence the greater effectiveness of the salvo at Yelnya, to which the Germans threatened to use chemical weapons.
  13. +1
    19 June 2024 20: 01
    Katyusha as such was created according to the Research and Development Institute of Chem. management of the Red Army. The first task was to use mustard gas over large areas. Therefore, accuracy did not play a big role. Then they switched to using incendiary thermite ammunition, and even the name of the Katyusha was “long-range flamethrower.” Well, then there were repressions, some of the chemists put the chief in the sharashka, and the ownerless car was given to the artillerymen. The Chief of the Chemical Troops, V.K., remembered this. Pikalov and in 1966 the task was set to revive this direction. And now the Russian Army has heavy flamethrower systems.
  14. 0
    3 August 2024 17: 44
    One or another contribution to the overall result was made by A.G. Kostikov, B.M. Slonimer, V.G. Galkovsky, I.I. Gwai, V.V. Aborenkov et al.

    To mention the first name "Kostikov" among the creators of "Katyusha" is at least controversial...